BEIJING - What is greater proof of
injustice, of being wronged, and of sitting on the
right side of history than sacrificing just your
own life for your beliefs without damaging anybody
else? And the government, the officials who see
people killing themselves, don't they prove
themselves callous, cruel, and wicked?

The
40-some individuals who burned themselves alive in
Tibet in recent months are a staggering example of
this. The flames sizzling their flesh show that
the administration is wrong to stand aloof without
addressing their cause.

It is a strong,
powerful, human account that makes the Tibet issue
a story of people against other people, oppressed against

oppressors, and a tale we
can relate to because we have all felt oppressed
at times.

According to cynical realists,
this spin doesn't address the bigger issues beyond
the human drama. There is the political position
of Tibet within China, which is hinted at through
the flames of suicide; but this can't be
challenged without arousing even bigger problems,
which could cause even more deaths.

The
issue of the secession of Tibet in any form or
shape would in fact cause an immediate, irate
reaction from Beijing and many common Chinese
folks. Yet as the scorched body count increases,
it becomes more difficult to simply put the issue
to rest, especially coming from a Western
tradition.

The recent book Escape From
North Korea by Melanie Kirkpatrick underscores
this point by talking about a somewhat related
issue: the flight of North Koreans from their
country through China. She beautifully retells the
harrowing accounts of many fugitives who ran for
their lives, risked everything, managed to reach
America, and now feel free. She explains to an
American public that this is a new Asian
underground railroad, just like the one that in
the first half of the 19th century helped so many
slaves escape their chains in the American South
and reach Canada.

The comparison is stark
and compelling as the author puts side by side the
accounts of those who bolted North Korea and those
who fled slavery in Alabama or Georgia. Of course,
North Korea now is not like Alabama or Georgia 150
years ago, but the memory of those slaves bring us
nearer to the North Koreans' present plight.

Here, there is an important historical
lesson to learn, which is the untold undercurrent
of Kirkpatrick's book. The human suffering of the
African-Americans in the South was the main
ideological force mobilizing public opinion then
and now to support the cause of the Union against
the Southern states that were trying to secede.

Historians tell us that the ensuing war
had little to do with slavery and more with
different models of production - massive industry
in the North and extensive agriculture in the
South. The fight against slavery was an ideal but
not a very practical political goal for many
Northern politicians who had contributed to
starting the war. When the North was losing
battles against the South, President Lincoln tried
to enlist Italian revolutionary Garibaldi to lead
the Northern troops. Garibaldi asked as a
condition the immediate abolishment of slavery,
something Lincoln could not grant, as he was still
hoping to regain some support in the South.

Every leader in fact is fully aware that
real politics is miles away from the ideals moving
mean and women to support him. This is true to the
extent that overly idealistic politicians
sometimes prove bad leaders as they fail to adapt
to different circumstances. However, politicians
are moved and move people on the basis of ideas
and ideals, which relate to human conditions and
people's suffering. Presently real-politick
Chinese leaders are very clear about that: their
forefathers took power in China because they
managed to stir people's emotions through
communist ideals. Yet ideas walk on full or empty
stomachs, on real conditions. Here different
histories fork apart.

Nineteenth-century
slaves were running from slavery - that is, basic
uncertainty about one's life. North Koreans
leaving their country may seek freedom, but
certainly they need even better living conditions.
They want to escape stark poverty, a diet of rice
and millet without protein. They want better food,
better clothes, and heated houses.

The
Tibetans torching themselves are different.

These people may not be free like in
America, but certainly they are freer than an old
Alabama slave in a cotton field. They may not own
fancy houses, but are not starving. They have
decent clothes, and decent roofs for shelter.
Also, in many ways, they do not want a better
life. If it were that, they could cross over to
Nepal or India, which is not an impossible route
from Tibet.

The ones who killed themselves
wanted something different, which is denied by the
government. It may be greater religious freedom,
as many proclaimed their desire to worship the
Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled religious leader. It
may be Tibet's independence, as others waved the
Tibetan flag before starting the fire. For them
the value of their ideas outweighs any material
advantage Beijing may give them.

Moreover,
evidently Beijing has not managed to make these
people feel a sense of being part of the
contemporary idea of China. In fact, these
Tibetans rebel against Beijing's orders not to
worship the Dalai Lama, or not to want
independence.

Shortly after the Chinese
takeover of Tibet, Beijing managed to win over
many Tibetans by breaking the old feudal society
and supporting the poor strata against richer
aristocrats. During the Cultural Revolution it was
Tibetan Red Guards, former serfs, who attacked the
Lamas who belonged to the aristocracy. China,
divided by class struggle, found in the unity of
class a bond linking (falsely or not, it is a
separate issue) different ethnic groups.

However, this legacy has now been lost as
it has become clear that no idea of class struggle
can give common Tibetans a new sense of identity.
They feel not very "Chinese" (zhongguoren),
as "China" (zhongguo) de facto belongs to
the Han, the ethnicity making up over 95% of
China's population. Thus they can find their
roots, their identity in the beliefs and practices
of the old Tibetan aristocracy, whom many fought
40 years ago.

This means the suicides are
not isolated instances. As their considerable
number indicates, many common Tibetans seem to be
sympathetic to the cause, and certainly the
growing controls in Tibet are pushing more common
people to feel for these modern martyrs. It is
unclear whether Beijing is actually losing the
battle of ideas in Tibet (Beijing offers a better
life and modest religious freedom, but vetoes
Dalai Lama worship and requests for independence
or greater autonomy), but certainly the suicides
are a serious setback. Simple prevention and
crackdown do not work. A decade ago, even the
Falun Gong, boasting up to 100 million followers,
threatened waves of suicides to humiliate the
government. In that case, a few attempts in 2001
in Tiananmen Square irked most of the Chinese
population, with little or no sympathy for
religious suicides. This plus a tough crackdown
basically eliminated all the protests in a few
months. It is difficult to apply the same strategy
to Tibetans, where religious fervor can be
embedded in pro-independence sentiments. Plus,
Lamaism has far deeper roots than Falun Gong, both
in the general population and in the lives of
Tibetans who make religion part of their
individual identities.

Then, China may
have many difficulties finding a quick solution to
the wave of suicides. The situation is not
desperate for Beijing. Many Han Chinese are
converting to Lamaism, making them sympathetic to
the plight of the Tibetans who are seeking greater
religious freedom; but many Han are also averse to
the idea of an independent Tibet that would leave
"their" China.

At the same time, many
"Chinese" Tibetans are developing different tastes
and ambitions than their brethren in India's
Dharamsala, the largest Tibetan community outside
of Tibet. These elements are creating new, deeper
bonds between Tibetans and Chinese. This plus the
development of transportation and
telecommunications, ending hundreds of years of
physical isolation for Tibet, is integrating the
Himalayan region into China to a degree never seen
before in Tibetan history. It is difficult for a
few suicides to reverse this complicated trend,
which is incorporating six million Tibetans to the
body of some 1.4 billion Chinese.

But the
suicides seem to indicate something else. If the
Chinese Tibetans do not find a powerful way to
connect their past and their identity to that of
the rest of China, if their culture and religion
are not strongly preserved within China and don't
truly become part of the national identity, not
simply an exotic embellishment, China (not just
the country of the Han people) could lose part of
its heritage and identity - and be weaker in a
world where it will increasingly have a greater
say.

Certainly, it is difficult for all
countries to confront minority issues. In America,
until a few decades ago, the official culture
celebrated as a heroic act what amounted to the
extermination of the native population of Indians.
Britain took centuries to solve the issue of
Ireland. But different times have different
standards. Then de facto nobody paid too much
attention.

Unfortunately for China,
Beijing faces old difficult problems with shorter
time and less international tolerance. However, it
was these new times that allowed China to grow so
quickly and thus change the global political
landscape. If China were still a very poor
populous country, possibly few would notice these
suicides. Then the necessity to confront the
complex issues behind the wave of protest is the
price of China's fast development. Then a good
solution to this could help also its development,
vice versa it would hinder it.

Francesco Sisci is a columnist
for the Italian daily Il Sole 24 Ore and can be
reached at fsisci@gmail.com